←back to thread

67 points xlmnxp | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
tptacek ◴[] No.45668433[source]
I will never, ever understand this "single-packet authentication" "port knocking" fetish. It has never made sense. Bin it, along with fail2ban, and just set up WireGuard.

Your network authentication should not be a fun game or series of Rube Goldberg contraptions.

replies(7): >>45668640 #>>45668974 #>>45669023 #>>45672079 #>>45672470 #>>45673304 #>>45676649 #
mdhb ◴[] No.45668640[source]
I mostly agree.. there’s a couple of very specific scenarios where maybe something like knockd makes sense I think but they are all scenarios where you’re doing things covertly, not as a general authentication mechanism.

As a side note I just happen to be reading a book at the moment that contains a fairly detailed walkthrough of the procedure required to access the Russian SVRs headquarters in New York in 1995.

Think of this as an analogue version and in no way a perfect analogy but it does include a step that has more or less the same security properties as this… anyways here’s a relevant quote:

“After an SVR officer passed through various checkpoints in the mission’s lower floors, he would take an elevator or stairs to an eighth-floor lobby that had two steel doors. Neither had any identifying signs.

One was used by the SVR, the other by the GRU. The SVR’s door had a brass plate and knob, but there was no keyhole. To open the door, the head of the screw in the lower right corner of the brass plate had to be touched with a metal object, such as a wedding ring or a coin.

The metal would connect the screw to the brass plate, completing an electrical circuit that would snap open the door’s bolt lock and sometimes shock the person holding the coin.The door opened into a small cloakroom. No jackets or suit coats were allowed inside the rezidentura because they could be used to conceal documents and hide miniature cameras.

SVR officers left their coats, cell phones, portable computers, and all other electronic devices in lockers. A camera videotaped everyone who entered the cloakroom. It was added after several officers discovered someone had stolen money from wallets left in jackets. Another solid steel door with a numeric lock that required a four-digit code to open led from the cloakroom into the rezidentura.

A male secretary sat near the door and kept track of who entered, exited, and at what times. A hallway to the left led to the main corridor, which was ninety feet long and had offices along either side. ”

Excerpt from Comrade J by Pete Earley

As another funny side note… I once discovered years ago that the North Koreans had a facility like this that they used to run a bunch of financing intelligence operations using drugs in Singapore where I was at the time and thought it would be funny to go and visit. It was in a business complex rather than a dedicated diplomatic facility from memory. But as I recall it was a similar scenario of unmarked door with no keyhole.

replies(2): >>45668751 #>>45669171 #
tptacek ◴[] No.45668751[source]
WireGuard is designed to be silent preceding a cryptographically authenticated INIT message. It's a superset of whatever security features you'd get from "knocking".
replies(2): >>45668801 #>>45668839 #
akerl_ ◴[] No.45668839[source]
In fairness, most of the fervor for these kind of knock-based flows predate Wireguard existing. They come from the era where OpenVPN and friends were the common practice in that space, and I would not have considered "add OpenVPN" to be a rational way to improve the security of anything I was doing.
replies(1): >>45671686 #
1. frumplestlatz ◴[] No.45671686[source]
OpenVPN was a perfectly reasonable answer to this problem for many years.

“Port knocking” et al were most definitively not.

replies(1): >>45671866 #
2. akerl_ ◴[] No.45671866[source]
Eh. I've used OpenVPN over many years for many kinds of problems. I'm hesitant to call it perfectly reasonable even for the most mundane use case of "running an entirely vanilla virtual private network". For the use case of securely wrapping services in the way Wireguard can do, it's hilariously bad.

OpenVPN is basically 1000 configuration options and magic incantations wearing a trenchcoat, and if you get any of them wrong the whole thing crumbles (or worse, appears to work but is not secure).